Phase line objectives

[Duck Doc]

Why not phase line objectives instead of objective boxes? This is not a criticism at all. I am just wondering. May have missed any discussion about this but I did look back. Thanks,

[Veitikka]

Having phase line objectives would mean arbitrarily shaped and sized objective areas? Well, if the objective covers several square kilometers it can be very hard to find and kill all the enemies occupying the objective.

[Duck Doc]

No objective areas but phase lines like 73 Easting in Gulf War. Useful in desert battle? What was Army doctrine regarding objectives in Germany during the Cold War? Mostly an idle thought on my part.

[CCIP-subsim]

Thinking of it - I would think of phase lines less as objectives (which are basically at the core of scenario scoring and AI priorities), and more as an aspect of planning - i.e. more part of the overall plan to capture/neutralize certain objectives. So in that sense, it's not completely wrong to leave those for the player - but there is one caveat! And that is the fact that phase lines are usually set at least a level (more likely two or three) above the player's role in AB, and and would be considered part of the player's orders - i.e., in a way, an objective.

There's a couple of ways I could think of in terms of reconciling this, though. One would be to make phase line objectives as suggested - cutting across the player's axis of advance with a large dummy radius but a very shallow depth. The defending AI could then randomly be sent to a small number of points along that line.

Another similar way of doing it would be to make "phase lines" simply a way of generating objectives (like "urban, closed" or "roads, hills" etc. are now) - that is, if you select that option, the scenario generator will try to distribute objectives into, say, 3 lines. For example, if you have 8 objectives, selecting that option would put 3 objectives at the front of the contested zone (neutral in meeting engagements, enemy in assaults), 3 halfway through that zone, and 2 at the back end of it.

There is also one advantage I can see for the AI if some sort of phase line logic is added: depending on mission type and state of forces, phase lines could be used to better manage AI resources. For example, it'd be neat if an AI could be made to fall back if a defense line is breached in an assault mission, and regroup at the next line - I find that a lot of times that I play assaults, AI forces end up getting bypassed harmlessly because they won't bother pulling back even when I'm clearly sending most of my force to objectives at their rear.
Or, conversely, similar logic can be used to better organize attacking AI: let's say if it could recognize objectives along particular phase lines, it could select which to concentrate on first, and then once it breaches a line - instead of continuing to rush forward or sit on the same objective, force it to turn and clear out the rest of that line before continuing to advance to the next.

Doesn't need to be anything complicated, but I can certainly see some value in it!

[22sec]

Phase lines are usually means to control movement and not used as objectives. Sometimes a unit may be ordered to clear to PL Whatever. I think this discussion gets in to one area of scenario creation in AB that is worth looking at implementing is objectives not based on terrain but on destroying the enemy in a given area. .

[kevinkins]

In a somewhat similar vein, how about old fashioned exit objectives? They maybe reflective of a Warsaw Pact rush to the Rhine. I know exit objectives have been controversial over the years, but I will mention them anyway.

Kevin